so i noticed people around here calls nikon the 'dark side' ie. 'should i switch to the dark side from canon?'. First of all, shouldn't both Nikon AND Canon be the dark side? since they own majority of the market, and other-brand users aren't that crazy about them here.

If any brand should be labelled the 'dark side', shouldn't that title go to Canon?

It seems their only goal is to maintain their position as the market leader and they'll go any length to achieve it. The perfect example is the 5D MkII, a crippled body with canon's best sensor. It was released around the same time as D3x as a statement that they are not behind. That doesn't smell fishy to anyone else? They managed to improve the same 21MP sensor with 2 stop better high ISO performance within a year? Bet they had that technology ready to go for a while...

I geniuely think Nikon wants to be the market leader AND deliver good photographic tools to photographers. They do it by not holding back any technologies they developed and more importantly not cripple camera bodies (too much, they still do though) within the line-up. History shows a good support of this with Nikon's FM2. A full manual all-environment camera released in the dawn of autofocus camera body age. The value of that thing only increased with age.

this might sound very nikon biased, but hey i supported my argument with examples...